draft_first_appeal

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that with a return-shape note ("standard envelope with the drafted text") and a legal disclaimer ("Not legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate"), which is meaningful downstream context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads purpose and trigger, then uses clean Args/Returns/Notes sections; nothing is bloated. The Args block mildly duplicates schema content, which keeps it from a perfect score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description needn't detail return values, and the annotation set covers the safety profile. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, with the only notable gap being how and when it relates to the sibling draft_second_appeal.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The Args section restates those definitions ("Reference to the original RTI application", "Grounds for the first appeal") without adding syntax, format, or examples, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Generate a draft) and resource (First Appeal under the RTI Act), which is concrete and unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the closely-related sibling draft_second_appeal, so it falls short of the 5-level bar of naming what it is not.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Use when the PIO fails to respond or provides unsatisfactory information" gives a clear triggering condition that orients the agent. It offers no explicit exclusion or pointer to alternatives (e.g., when to escalate to draft_second_appeal instead), so it stops short of 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.